Appeal 2007-1344
Application 10/045,789
obviousness rejections turns on whether the asserted references disclose indirect
selection of control parameters by algorithmic processing of values of a plurality of
bit positions of the version coding.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we make
reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004). Except as noted in this opinion, Appellant has not
presented any substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of the
dependent claims or related claims in each group. In the absence of a separate
argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the representative
independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following enumerated findings to be supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427, 7
USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard
for proceedings before the Office).
1. The Specification teaches that control parameters of a vehicle version can
be determined indirectly by algorithmic processing of the version coding
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013